Fencing has been used in South Africa to address conflicts between wildlife conservation and livestock grazing, but has often harmed wildlife. Fences were erected to protect non-native cattle from disease and predators, but eliminated large wildlife populations and failed to prevent disease spread. This containment caused additional biodiversity loss and alienated locals. Fencing can control disease and conflict if carefully planned and monitored, but also impedes wildlife migration and fragmentation. The impacts of fencing require consideration of wildlife needs, climate change, and community involvement to most effectively protect wildlife, livestock, and humans.

1. Wildlife Fencing:
An assessment of fencing as a tool for conservation and veterinary purposes in South Africa
L. David Cohen and Dr. Vicky Meretsky
Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Figure 2: The transmission of disease between wildlife and livestock is influenced by the complex interaction of multiple factors (Dion et al. 2011).
Figure
3:
African
buffalo
(Syncerus
caffer).
In South Africa (SA), wildlife conservation has unceasingly come into conflict
with livestock grazing and with sustenance living. Fences have often been
employed to address these conflicts, but generally to the detriment of wildlife. In
a failed attempt to protect their vulnerable, non-native cattle from disease and
predation, European settlers eliminated large populations of wildlife but failed to
prevent disease. Then, to ensure long-term protection of cattle and humans,
fences were erected, sometimes continuing for hundreds of miles, cutting
wildlife off from their traditional migratory paths and the food and water they
once accessed by migration. This containment of wildlife caused major
additional losses of plants and animals.
Biodiversity loss results in ecological harm, while further alienating locals
from their historical and sociocultural ties with plants and wildlife. Carefully
considered policies and planning are needed to place fences to minimize harm to
wildlife. Careful monitoring can help to managers adapt fencing practices to
respond to wildlife needs in the face of climate change and changing land use.
High biodiversity, along with the growing threat of wildlife extinction by
anthropogenic actions, is one reason why SA mandates fencing around
conservation areas. This thesis discusses positive and negative impacts of fencing
as a conservational tool in SA, the associated policies, and the changes needed to
most effectively protect livestock, wildlife, and humans.
Abstract
Figure
4:
A
collec4on
of
snares
at
Hlane
Na4onal
Park,
Swaziland.
Figure 1: FISS incidents per species (elephant, lion, hyena) per month between Nov. 2008 and July 2009 (Hayward and Kerley 2009).
Fence
Incident
Surveillance
System
(FISS)
Incidents
in
KNP
Figure
6:
African
lion
(Panthera
leo).
Figure
5:
Fence
damaged
by
elephants
in
KNP
(Ferguson,
Adam,
and
Jori
2012).
• Disease control (foot-and-mouth disease: FMD)
• Control required for SA’s livestock industry
• Few outbreaks of FMD since initial construction of veterinary cordon fence
along western boundary of KNP in early 1960s
• Human-wildlife conflict
• Protects farms from damage by large ungulates
• Protects humans and livestock from predator depredation
• Anti-poaching
• Concrete-reinforced fencing is best option to deter illegal entry
• Expensive and reduces visibility
• Allows wildlife managers to control high-traffic entry points
• Eco-tourism
• Establishment of protected natural areas
• Revenue for conservation and anti-poaching efforts
• Provides local employment opportunities
• Creates hunting opportunities
• Added revenue
• Population control
Successful
Applica4ons
of
Fencing
Dion, Elise, Louis VanSchalkwyk, and Eric F. Lambin. “The Landscape Epidemiology of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in South Africa: A Spatially Explicit Multi-Agent Simulation.” Ecological Modelling 222.13 (2011): 2059–2072.
ISI Web of Knowledge. Web.
Ferguson, K. & Hanks, J. eds., 2010. Fencing Impacts: A review of the environmental, social and economic impacts of game and veterinary fencing in Africa with particular reference to the Great Limpopo and Kavango-Zambezi
Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Pretoria: Mammal Research Institute.
Ferguson, Ken, Laura Adam, and Ferran Jori. An Adaptive Monitoring Programme for Studying Impacts Along the Western Boundary Fence of Kruger National Park, South Africa. Ed. M. J. Somers and M. W. Hayward. New York:
Springer, 2012. Print.
Hayward, Matt W., and Graham I. H. Kerley. “Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes?” Biological Conservation 142.1 (2009): 1–13. ISI Web of Knowledge. Web.
Jori, F. et al. “A Questionnaire-Based Evaluation of the Veterinary Cordon Fence Separating Wildlife and Livestock along the Boundary of the Kruger National Park, South Africa.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 100.3–4 (2011):
210–220. ScienceDirect. Web. 5 Apr. 2015.
Kalwa, Ralph. "Managing in Kruger National Park." SPEA in South Africa. Limpopo Province, Melelane. 4 June 2014. Lecture.
Lindsey, Peter A. et al. “Ecological, Social and Financial Issues Related to Fencing as a Conservation Tool in Africa.” Fencing for Conservation. Ed. Michael J. Somers and Matthew
Seidler, Renee G. et al. “Identifying Impediments to Long-Distance Mammal Migrations.” Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 29.1 (2015): 99–109. ISI Web of Knowledge. Web.
Trimble, Morgan J., and Rudi J. Van Aarde. “Fences Are More than an Issue of Aesthetics.” BioScience 60.7 (2010): 485–486. bioone.org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu (Atypon). Web. 24 Dec. 2014.
Cita4ons
• Disease control (African trypanosomiasis)
• Fences can’t protect cattle from tsetse fly vector
• Limited value in containment of non-contagious illnesses
• Human-wildlife conflict
• Elephants incur most damage to fences (Figure 1)
• Most cases result in the loss of life and/or crops
• Use of snares for poaching (Figure 4)
• Cost from both lost wildlife and fencing repairs
• Negative community perceptions
• Exclusive nature of protected areas requiring admission fees
• Inability to repair fencing before animals escape
• Impediment on ecological processes
• Annual/seasonal migration
• Climate change
• Increase in amount and severity of fence-damaging weather events allows
for more wildlife to escape
• Fencing prevents dispersal to areas with appropriate climate
• Fence-line mortality
• Entanglement in wires
• Disruption of predator-prey equilibrium
• Predators learn to use fence to their advantage in hunting
• Habitat isolation and fragmentation
• Increases risk of inbreeding
Ini4al
Losses
• Buffer zones
• Allow fence patrols to detect the signs of poachers
• Acts as communal land for both wildlife and surrounding communities
• Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs)
• Removal of fences within the TFCA to connect protected areas
• Allows wildlife to develop dispersal routes
• Allows boundaries to follow ecosystem divisions rather than political
divisions
• Increased community involvement
• Promotes local appreciation of native wildlife
• Provides training and employment of farmers to detect damaged fences
• Additional income for households
• Reduce livestock depredation and crop damage
• Assists wildlife managers in guarding large protected areas or areas of high
poaching traffic
Further
Improvement